U.S. Asks Court To Strike Florida 'English-Only' Petitions

The fate of an initiative that would declare English the official
language of Florida grew more uncertain last week, after the U.S.
Justice Department urged a federal appeals court to strike the measure
from the Nov. 8 ballot.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit was expected to issue a ruling in the case, Delgado v. Smith,
late last week.

The suit, filed by opponents of the initiative, argues that the
proposal should be declared invalid under the federal Voting Rights Act
because its supporters failed to circulate Spanish-language petitions
to place it on the ballot in six counties whose election procedures are
covered under the law.

U.S. District Judge James W. Kehoe ruled against the opponents last
month, prompting the appeal to the 11th Circuit Court.

Last week's legal maneuvering marked the second time in recent weeks
that opponents of so-called "official English" proposals have turned to
the courts to strike such measures from their states' ballots.

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
overturned a lower-court ruling that would have barred a similar
mea4sure from going before Colorado voters this week.

A third official-English initiative in Arizona has not been subject
to a legal challenge. All three proposals are said to be favored by a
majority of their states' voters.

In a Nov. 2 brief filed in the Florida suit, Assistant Attorney
General William Bradford Reynolds argued that the federal district
judge in the case erred "in concluding that the intitative petitions at
issue are not election materials provided by the state of Florida."

"The failure to require their distribution in Spanish as well as
English violates the bilingual provisions of the Voting Rights Act," he
added.

Jeffrey T. Browne, coordinator of Speak Up Now for Florida, a group
that opposes the official-English measure, said the Justice
Department's intervention in the suit "incredibly strengthens our
case."

The plaintiffs' odds of winning a favorable ruling from the appeals
court, he said, have shifted from "30-70 to 70-30" as a result of the
action.

Mark A. Dienstag, a lawyer representing the Florida English Campaign
and U.S. English--state and national groups that back the measure--said
Mr. Reynolds's brief failed to cite "a growing body of case law" that
supports the position that petitions are not covered under the Voting
Rights Act. He also alleged that the brief cited some cases out of
context.

"We're very confident that the appellate court will see it our way"
and deny an injunction to declare the election invalid, said Mark
LaPorta, director of the Florida English Campaign.

Tom Olson, public-affairs director for U.S. English, also noted that
the brief leaves the door open for the court to provide "injunctive
relief against future violations" while allowing the election results
to stand.

Because the Justice Department did not intervene in the Colorado
case, Mr. Browne noted, some observers may interpret its intervention
in Florida as a political move to boost Hispanic support for George
Bush, the Republican Presidential candidate, on the eve of the
election.

But he said he did not view the act as a "cynical pre-election
move'' because it is consistent with the Justice Department's previous
interpretations of the Voting Rights Act. He noted that plaintiffs in
the Colorado case had cited a department memorandum interpreting the
Voting Rights Act to cover petitions.

"Their authority got challenged, and they found a good test case,"
he said, adding that opponents of the measure in Colorado did not have
"as strong a case" as the Florida plaintiffs because they were not able
to show "as much state intervention" in the approval of the
petitions.

Mark R. Weaver, a Justice Department spokesman, explained that that
the department did not intervene in the Colorado case because it did
not have time to "thoroughly examine all the revelant law" prior to the
10th Circuit Court's ruling in the suit.

"The Justice Department is not taking a side on whether it is a good
idea or bad idea" to make English a state's official language, Mr.
Weaver said. "We're saying that the Voting Rights Act requires that
petitions for ballot questions must be circulated bilingually in
covered areas."

"Although it is ironic that this question had to do with official
English," he said, "if the referendum involved was about car insurance
or a state lottery, the issue would be the same."

Leaders of the official-English movement have sharply criticized
bilingual programs that teach students in their native language to
bridge the transition to English.

Opponents fear that schools could relax or eliminate native-language
instruction if the ballot measures are approved.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.